US v. Jasper Buck


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00029-GLR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999946389].. [16-4150]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4150 Doc: 25 Filed: 10/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4150 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASPER BUCK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00029-GLR-1) Submitted: September 20, 2016 Decided: October 13, 2016 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Sean R. Delaney, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4150 Doc: 25 Filed: 10/13/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jasper Buck appeals his sentence of 120 imprisonment after pleading guilty to mail fraud. months’ Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We ordinarily deferential review a criminal abuse-of-discretion sentence standard.” States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “under Gall v. a United We “first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate Guidelines range, § 3553(a) [(2012)] explain the . . . chosen (or failing factors, improperly to . . . sentence.” calculating) consider or Id. the failing at 51. [18 to If the U.S.C.] adequately there is no significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Id. Buck argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address sufficiently his arguments at sentencing regarding his age and health, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Our review of the record reveals that the district court carefully considered Buck’s arguments and sufficiently explained its placing greater weight on other sentencing factors. reasons for Buck also claims that the district court abused its discretion by imposing 2 Appeal: 16-4150 Doc: 25 Filed: 10/13/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 a 120-month sentence, which represented an upward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that the district court did not act unreasonably in deciding to impose a variant sentence or determining the extent of the variance. See United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?